Fear not, iOS rockers: you can keep playing Rock Band after May 31.

It's been a short but confusing month so far for owners of the iOS version of rhythm game Rock Band. Those who tried to use the app on May 1 were greeted with a message saying that the $4.99 game "will no longer be playable on your device" as of May 31. "Thanks for rocking out with us!" the message said, somewhat tauntingly.

A message on EA's online help site (since updated) further confirmed that the game would be totally unplayable after the end of the month, despite there being no indication of the impending shutdown on the app's page on Apple's App Store. Users expressed their confusion and anger at the sudden impending shutdown on sites like Reddit, NeoGAF and RockBandAide. Some flooded iTunes with angry one-star reviews for the game, or wrote to Apple demanding their money back.

Rock Band developer Harmonix said it was caught unaware by the game's message and redirected questions to publisher EA Mobile. When asked for comment on the situation, Apple also deferred to EA, which remained frustratingly silent on the matter until an abrupt reversal on Wednesday evening.

"Rock Band for iOS will remain live—the in-app message users received yesterday was sent in error," EA said in a statement provided to Ars Technica. "We apologize for the confusion this caused. We're working to clarify the issue that caused the error and will share additional information as soon as possible." The app itself was updated with a similar message asking players to disregard the previous message.

What the heck happened?

While we wait for further details on what caused this confusing turn of events, speculation is running rampant. Did EA really send the message in error, or is the company merely backpedaling in light of a public outcry? Were music licensing issues to blame for the brief prospect of a cutoff? Was EA originally planning to redirect users from the somewhat outdated Rock Band to the newer Rock Band Reloaded, much as it recently tried to get players of the iPad version of Tetris to buy a new version?

A simpler explanation might simply involve an overzealous copywriter, who could have misinterpreted the effect of a potential shutdown of Rock Band's servers. Such a shutdown would disable the game's competitive online gameplay and downloadable music store, but shouldn't have been able to affect the game's offline single-player mode (making this case different from that of ngmoco's iOS MMO shooter Eliminate, which will see its servers shut down May 25).

Oops! False alarm! Sorry!

For that matter, it's still an open question whether EA would have been able to completely disable the Rock Band app even if it wanted to. While the company can easily remove Rock Band from the App Store any time it wants, to our knowledge there's no simple mechanism for an app maker to block access to previously downloaded, offline apps on iOS. The only real way to manage such a shut-off would be to build in a date-based check from the moment you started selling the app. Even then, offline users could get around the check by changing the date on their hardware. (Apple did not comment on the feasibility of shutting down access to previously downloaded apps).

Legal questions remain

Even if EA had the technical means to shut down the app, it's an open question as to whether it could really do so legally. Like most pieces of software released these days, Rock Band does come with an extensive end-user license agreement that basically gives EA the right to modify or revoke the "limited, non-exclusive license" you've purchased for the game whenever it wants. As an iTunes purchase, the game is also subject to Apple's EULA, which lets the "application provider" terminate your access to the app at any time.

But there's some question as to whether these EULAs would be enforceable in court. While there's a link to EA's "Application License Agreement" on the iTunes page where Rock Band is sold, the app doesn't ask you to read or approve that EULA before making your purchase. Even after you've installed the game, the EULA is hidden in the Extras menu under a "Legal Info." option.

"Courts do frown on EULAs that are not clearly presented to the user," Electronic Frontier Foundation Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry told Ars Technica. "Especially when the use is an average consumer, rather than, say, a competitor. So it might not be enforceableble."

For McSherry, the short, confusing saga is just more evidence of how broken the process for purchasing digital products has become. "[It] just shows how ridiculous the process of 'buying' products has become—in the brave new world of online commerce, the smallest transaction is surrounded by a web of contracts!"

I expect that this is actually a misunderstanding regarding the servers going offline.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if EA actually tried to terminate your access to a game ("You didn't buy your game, you got a 1 year season pass! Year's up!"). I just think that isn't what happened. I think someone just screwed up with the push notification. I wouldn't be surprised if there was just a little general confusion among lesser staff about what happened to the app when the servers go down.

As people were claiming this would mean the end of online play (and the DLC, as Apple doesn't host it, EA does, there's no option to have Apple host it), they got the date wrong. You can't redownload DLC you've paid for as they've all been removed, only the "Free" DLC is available... for now.

Very few games on mobile devices have appealed to me enough to actually pay for them. This only reinforces that mindset. Granted, anything that says "EA" usually means no money will change hands for me anyway.

Is it me, or is EA's motto "Let's kill the servers"? The funniest thing about all of this, at some point in the future there will be the message of "Sorry about the previous message, Rock band's servers will shut down on XX date"

I expect that this is actually a misunderstanding regarding the servers going offline.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if EA actually tried to terminate your access to a game ("You didn't buy your game, you got a 1 year season pass! Year's up!"). I just think that isn't what happened. I think someone just screwed up with the push notification. I wouldn't be surprised if there was just a little general confusion among lesser staff about what happened to the app when the servers go down.

You know, for some games, especially the sports franchises, that wouldn't be a bad model. Instead of paying $60 a title every year, the option to pay less for a one year subscription, and then be able to renew the subscription for another year with the new version, wouldn't be a bad thing.

I would so love to see this type of thing go to court, and to see someone point out how on their site they refer to buying the game not buying a license to play the game for a certain time frame..

This....

"OH.... you didn't read the fine print!" Well thank you Apple and EA. Duly noted. I'll be certain that I do NOT send money your way. I know, my paltry $5 doesn't mean anything to you.Difference is... I educate other customers about your business dealings and damage you in ways that exceed my $5. For my $5... I will cost you at least $50.

A saga. Really guys? This qualifies as a saga? I feel like gamers have two hobbies lately - gaming and gently picking apart the turds every time an EA employee takes a dump. Seriously.

Just registered, and the first post is defending a company.

Perhaps the appearance of astroturfing is simply my perception.

Yes, no doubt. You're a regular Sherlock Holmes, dude. Or, maybe and more plausibly, I saw the link on reddit and decided to register because the article is ridiculous enough to compel me to sit through the registration process.

You know, for some games, especially the sports franchises, that wouldn't be a bad model. Instead of paying $60 a title every year, the option to pay less for a one year subscription, and then be able to renew the subscription for another year with the new version, wouldn't be a bad thing.

That would benefit the players, but not the company. They really count on people buying that full-priced game over and over again every year, even if it's just roster updates.

A saga. Really guys? This qualifies as a saga? I feel like gamers have two hobbies lately - gaming and gently picking apart the turds every time an EA employee takes a dump. Seriously.

Just registered, and the first post is defending a company.

Perhaps the appearance of astroturfing is simply my perception.

Yes, no doubt. You're a regular Sherlock Holmes, dude. Or, maybe and more plausibly, I saw the link on reddit and decided to register because the article is ridiculous enough to compel me to sit through the registration process.

I've heard ROCK BAND will not be available after May 31. Is this true?Yes, we will be suspending support of ROCK BAND after May 31 and focusing resources on other EA titles. We thank everyone for playing ROCK BAND, and we encourage you to explore some of the other exciting titles in our mobile line-up.

Can I still play ROCK BAND if I've already downloaded it?The ROCK BAND servers will be live through May 31, 2012. If you have already downloaded the game, you can continue to play until then.

OneFreeMan wrote:

Or, maybe and more plausibly, I saw the link on reddit and decided to register because the article is ridiculous enough to compel me to sit through the registration process.

You mispelled "true" as "ridiculous." If you're going to stand up for a corporation, be sure about what they're doing first. Otherwise you look like a corporate PR flak, which is how I interpreted your first post. Perhaps I was wrong about that, but EA were planning to cancel a game people had paid for and had bought songs for. I don't even have the game and I think that's a shitty way to treat a 'customer.'

This wasn't a mistake - other sites that looked at this on the day reported an EA help page (which has subsequently been changed) as saying that the game was going to be cut off.

How does that mean it wasn't a mistake? EA isn't a single entity, you know? It has many employees. It's entirely possible one made this decision (by mistake), set up the help page, etc. and sent out the push notification before people became aware and said "No, that's not what we're doing." Very easily attributable to a miscommunication or some crossed wires between the producer/assistant producer, sales & marketing and management.

Of course, none of that fits into the accepted party line on EA which says every misstep is directly attributable to some grand plan to destroy your beloved hobby, so we should all assume the conclusions you jump to are completely reliable and go ahead and accept them as truth.

How does that mean it wasn't a mistake? EA isn't a single entity, you know? It has many employees. It's entirely possible one made this decision (by mistake), set up the help page, etc. and sent out the push notification before people became aware and said "No, that's not what we're doing." Very easily attributable to a miscommunication or some crossed wires between the producer/assistant producer, sales & marketing and management.

A corporation IS a single entity no matter how many employees. And employees are not usually named, other than executives. It's common useage to refer to this as EA's fault, even if it was 1 faulty employee or 1 (faultless) executive. Unless of course you happen to know the name of the employee or executive that is responsible?

I'd expect that a corporation with such a poor reputation like EA (worst corporation) would be extra careful about anything released into the 'wild' these days. The spotlight is on them and other corporations. Can you claim you're not employed to try to put a positive spin on things like this?

I don't doubt that EA has done positive things (can't name any offhand), but they've done a lot of damage as well.

The Supreme Court has ruled a corporation is a person. Regardless of how many employees, it is a single entity. Bad behavior by 1 employee out of 100,000 is still the responsibility of the corporation. Employee hits you while driving the company car to a work site? Corporation pays. Employee releases sensitive data to the public? Corporation pays. Employee copies 9 lines of 13 million in a software product? Corporation pays.

So regardless of whether an EA employee made a mixup by accident or by expressed orders, EA is still the end up responsible. Perhaps this will educate your supervisors at EA.

This wasn't a mistake - other sites that looked at this on the day reported an EA help page (which has subsequently been changed) as saying that the game was going to be cut off.

How does that mean it wasn't a mistake? EA isn't a single entity, you know? It has many employees. It's entirely possible one made this decision (by mistake), set up the help page, etc. and sent out the push notification before people became aware and said "No, that's not what we're doing." Very easily attributable to a miscommunication or some crossed wires between the producer/assistant producer, sales & marketing and management.

So an official statement made in the application itself plus the forums could be a simple mistake? You think one person does both of those functions in any medium to large company?

Really? You're stretching here. Either that, or you just don't have the first clue about business. I'm suspecting both, but you might yet surprise me.

If you're right, then EA has hopeless internal management. No-one gets to change a website without approval in a company the size of EA. No-one gets to put a message like that into a game without approval. It does not happen in professional businesses.

If you're wrong, then EA did something stupid and backpedalled when they saw the reaction.

You're defending stupidity or bad business. Yay for you! You're straight out of a Dilbert cartoon.

Quote:

Of course, none of that fits into the accepted party line on EA which says every misstep is directly attributable to some grand plan to destroy your beloved hobby, so we should all assume the conclusions you jump to are completely reliable and go ahead and accept them as truth.

I don't care about EA, I haven't bought a game in years and nothing from EA for probably a decade. I'm mostly disinterested in that side of things, and almost never comment in gaming threads. What irks me is the idea that they can turn a game off when people paid for it without realising they were renting it.

Unlike you, I'm not willing to be utterly blind to reality and defend terrible practices. That may fan the flames of your eagerness to defend EA, and I look forward to reading a post of your that uses logic to make a point. It'd be a nice change.

This wasn't a mistake - other sites that looked at this on the day reported an EA help page (which has subsequently been changed) as saying that the game was going to be cut off.

How does that mean it wasn't a mistake? EA isn't a single entity, you know? It has many employees. It's entirely possible one made this decision (by mistake), set up the help page, etc. and sent out the push notification before people became aware and said "No, that's not what we're doing." Very easily attributable to a miscommunication or some crossed wires between the producer/assistant producer, sales & marketing and management.

So an official statement made in the application itself plus the forums could be a simple mistake? You think one person does both of those functions in any medium to large company?

If that one employee that made the mistake was actually the manager of a team of people that take care of this stuff then his point stands...

Them actually turning it off (which they didn't do, apparently) would have been total bullshit though.

Maybe they meant to say the online servers were going down. Unfortunately this is not uncommon with games.

The larger issue, which has been pointed out already, is that you are not really purchasing anything when you buy a digital copy anymore. It is a highly restrictive license when compared to the physical product.For example, if I purchase albums and e-books from apple, it is tied to my itunes account. Not a big deal right? Well besides the obvious problem that it cant be resold (you dont really own it) is that you cant even put that content in your will for your children or others. It's simply an agreement between you and the digital store. You cant loan an e-book to a friend. What happens in the unlikely event the company who owns the digital store goes under or merges with another company that decides it no longer wants to honor your "license" ? Tough shit is what. I think if this were better understood for people in general they may think twice about paying the same price for a digital license as they do for a physical product.

The more tin foil side to this, is what if in the future that book or song you have a license to conflicts with the powers that be? For political or other reasons. Or it is determined that it infringes some copyright. It could be removed from your device without your consent. This has happened before in history even with physical products.

Perhaps it would make a good ars article, if one does not exist already.

OT: still speaking of articles though, why don't we get many game reviews in the game section any more? Get massive truckloads of MMO news, a splash of indie stuff and a bit of et al speculation tid bits, but not much else at the moment it seems.

Apple did this with WiFifofum (and all wifi-stumbler-type apps), they just did it under the guise of the iOS 5 update -- ie, the whole "no APIs which can manipulate the wireless connection or the show level of information regarding the wireless connection" thing.

I would so love to see this type of thing go to court, and to see someone point out how on their site they refer to buying the game not buying a license to play the game for a certain time frame..

Yeah, I want my fucking Tabula Rasa game to work again!

This. Shortest lived game ever.

Though it explains why I will never buy a game that has Richard Gariott's slimy fingerprints on it. It's his fault the beta was launched before it was ready, and subsequently why the game was launched too early ultimately leading to its demise.

I couldn't see it going to court. It's still enough to completely blacklist a publisher. (Though if EA isn't on people's Publisher blacklist already, it's safe to assume they'll never be there.) In the case of Tabula Rasa, the development team was very vocal on the beta forums about their grievances with the game's timeline, and given the tone of the posts a few were probably subsequently fired for it.

Side note: Could you imagine if Tabula Rasa were released today? "It's like WoW and Mass Effect 1 or 2 had a baby."

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.